USPA and the canopy issue

[billvon 2,400]

>Therefore, we should make at least a "basic" class an A license
>requirement, then subsequent class(es) should be part of higher license
>requirements. Maybe each license has its canopy class that is required?

Sure, that works. We have something like that now (accuracy requirements) - it would be an increase in skills demonstration rather than something completely new.

[DSE 3]

Nice try, Robin...
USPA cannot compel dropzones to spend exceptionally high dollars for different training methods than those already in place.
USPA can control how they spend our money.

Where in that thread is anyone defending how USPA is spending our money? Umm...no where. It's just another one of your fantasies. I'll give ya this, you're a great creative writer.

You know this as well as I do, and the truth is, I'm the bigger fool for continuing the discussion with you.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

>Sunset...night jump...two completely different animals . . .

Some of my favorite night jumps started out as "sunset" jumps.

Yes, you have the skill to handle both. Sorry you had to cruise around for an hour waiting to make the sunset load into a night jump.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Anvilbrother 0]

I don't know if its been said yet, and I cant read 3 pages right now, but did anyone mention the easiest solution to the problem would be for ALL the DZO, ST&A, and Instructors, and other jumpers just sacking up and setting the people that are doing obviously stupid stuff straight, or they cant jump there?

I have done it with a friends before that thought they could downsize faster than they should. Its been done to me (camera) and it works! Thanks DSE and Joe!

You don't have to be a dick about it, but if it comes to that, do what you gotta do, if they decide to take their 99sq ft coming in sideways in the pattern cutting people off nylon rocket somewhere else then fine that's less broken or dead bodies at your DZ!

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[robinheid 0]

Quote

USPA cannot compel dropzones to spend exceptionally high dollars for different training methods than those already in place.

Nice straw man, Douglas... all of the training methods I suggest are already in place... I'm just saying we need to rearrange and re-prioritize what we already have to teach survival skills first and fun skills second.

Quote

Where in that thread is anyone defending how USPA is spending our money? Umm...no where. It's just another one of your fantasies. I'll give ya this, you're a great creative writer.

Enough with the straw men, dude... I didn't say the defenders were on the thread... D'OH! the defenders of the failed marketing status quo that you're calling out are the BOD and HQ peeps.... you know, the same BOD and HQ peeps whose failed training system status quo you're defending on this thread.

Quote

You know this as well as I do, and the truth is, I'm the bigger fool for continuing the discussion with you.

Indeed... you forgot the old maxim: the first step to getting yourself out of a hole is to... stop digging.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[DocPop 1]

So how about we look at what might need to be included in these courses. Let's assume for this that there will be a compulsory basic course and then an advanced one.

I'll start things of, please feel free to add to the lists. I am not trying to make these lists exhaustive - just enough to give someone more 'feel' for their canopy to make them fly safer. Neither is a how-to-swoop course.

Basic
Accuracy trick
Planning, flying and adjusting a pattern
Planning an off-landing
Flat turns for obstacle avoidance
Flaring correctly (height, speed and technique)

Advanced
Stall point on rears and toggles
Braked approach landings
Downwind and crosswind landings
Landing using double fronts (?)

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Therefore, we should make at least a "basic" class an A license requirement, then subsequent class(es) should be part of higher license requirements. Maybe each license has its canopy class that is required?

Pre-A license holders "should" be getting enough basic canopy training from their instructors... if they're using the ISP and working with rated instructors, that is. They also spend more then enough money in those first 25 jumps.

The same "basic" course that is outlined in the SIM could be required for a B license. This allows the new jumper some time to financially recover from the A license, and in most cases to downsize from student sized canopies to their own gear. Being on the canopy they're likely to put the next 200 jumps on when they take the course will make what they learn far more valuable to them.

In addition, since it's mostly not the 50 jump wonders who are killing themselves and others today, the same course should at some point very soon be required of EVERY SKYDIVER OUT THERE. This could be done by requiring that the year after a canopy coaching program is put together, every jumper renewing their membership (which, technically, is also renewing their license) complete an "approved" basic course, and any jumper renewing an expired membership in the future would have to meet the same requirement.

Of course, none of that will stop Johnny Awesome at 200 jumps from flying his 1.6 loaded whatever into you... only enforcable limits on what canopies Johnny Awesome can fly until he has a D license will do that...

[skybytch 259]

The only thing on your list that isn't covered in the basic course outline provided in the SIM is double fronts for landing. There's no need to reinvent the wheel for this.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

The only thing on your list that isn't covered in the basic course outline provided in the SIM is double fronts for landing. There's no need to reinvent the wheel for this.

Maybe "re-inventing" instructors is the thing to do.
Too many out there only teach freefall skills and neglect canopy skills....you see it everywhere.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DocPop 1]

But it isn't getting into students' heads!!

What I am talking about here is an additional course for new jumpers cleared for to self-supervise (exactly when this should happen has been discussed previously).

I think the things I listed are important enough to warrant repetition in an environment solely focused on canopy work.

My experience is that newer jumpers are not good at accuracy, pattern flying etc. Maybe your experience is different. Anyway you look at it - unacceptable numbers of people are dying.

Please feel free to suggest improvements, but merely shooting down ideas without giving better alternatives is not very productive.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[stayhigh 2]

How will uspa control one's ego????
How would uspa talk to someone with 2000+ jumps and who shouldn't be on crossbrace????
How will uspa undo one's landing habit which will eventually lead to eat shit if lucky??????

How about problem lies in jumpers not reading shit????
SIM book has enough information on what to work on under canopy.
Also parachute and pilot will be another good start.
Whenenver i suggest new jumper about the book and what do they do????? Nothing, cuz they know everything right?????

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[DocPop 1]

Quote

How will uspa control one's ego????
How would uspa talk to someone with 2000+ jumps and who shouldn't be on crossbrace????
How will uspa undo one's landing habit which will eventually lead to eat shit if lucky??????

How about stripping someone of S&TA status if an investigation shows an accident was entirely predictable and no action was taken (eg. repeated safety violations) ?

If it needs to have more teeth than that, then those who lose S&TA status could be "named and shamed" in Parachutist.

Hurt feelings might be better than hurt skydivers.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[stayhigh 2]

How about currency is the key.
200 jumps in 20 year will likely get YOU hurt one day.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[DocPop 1]

Quote

How about currency is the key.
200 jumps in 20 year will likely get YOU hurt one day.

Why are you attacking me? I am posting here trying to add value and provide legitimate suggestions.

You know nothing. Half those jumps are in the past 5 months. Fuck you and stick to the point.

Currency does NOT automatically make someone a heads-up safe canopy pilot. So your thinly veiled attack is also wrong.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

>Make advanced canopy training a D license requirement . . .

Sounds good. Training might indeed reduce fatalities.

>We don't have an epidemic of sunset load fatalities because
>people haven't enough night jump experience.

Might that be because we require night jump training? If you really think that training reduces fatalities, then that applies to more than just canopy control.

So following that to its logical conclusion, we shouldn't allow anyone on a sunset load unless they've done 2 night jumps.

I'm unaware of any epidemic of accidents on sunset loads of people with A, B and C licenses. Maybe you can enlighten us (pun intended).

We DO have an epidemic of canopy accidents in broad daylight.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[OG-Tahiti 0]

Well I know we are talking about training here, but I am sure that regulations play a big role.

I am sure lots of people would love to do 120 mph on the freeway, and some would probably manage it just fine, but guess what you are NOT allowed to.

I would like to talk about the french system for canopy downsizing here.

Some of you know that it is based on jump numbers and is conservative enough that it proved being effective since it's implementation in France. I don't have numbers to back it up but the french USPA equivalent is happy with it and DZ safety advisors only have good things to say about it, well those I talked to.

Now I'll take myself as an example, I'm rather new to the sport, and have under 200 jumps.

I learned in Elsinore and made 90% of my jumps there.

I weight about 144 pounds and according to the french wing loading chart I have to be under a 170 MAX until 250+ jumps, then it's a 150 until 400, after that it's all on me I should know better by then.

Well when I jump at my home DZ of Elsinore I see that all the friends that started around the same time I did and have about the same number of jumps, are all under much smaller and higher loaded canopies.

I honestly don't think you see that many newer jumpers in the US with around 200 jumps at a wing load thats lower than 1:1

Looks like it works good here in France, and I am VERY happy under my 170, I make it back from long spots easily and I am far from using it to it's max, not much of a reason to downsize yet... Once I start feeling comfortable doing front riser dives on landing and using the whole range of controls on it, then yeah maybe a 150 will be more fun and just as safe.

I am sorry but as my sig says, people will not always make the smart choice, even with the best training available. That's why sometimes regulations are one of the only solutions.

"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Dudeist Skydiver #9

[billvon 2,400]

>How about stripping someone of S&TA status if an investigation shows an
>accident was entirely predictable and no action was taken (eg. repeated
>safety violations) ?

What's a "safety violation?" Lands on their butt? That happens a lot. Cuts someone off? That's indeed a problem, and in most places, that will get you a talking to. Is that sufficient "action?" Lands in a way that looks like he's out of control? How do you determine that? You know they're going to say "I was fine." What do you do if there are four S+TA's at a DZ and they're all teaching/doing tandems when this guy lands?

This sounds like trying to legislate common sense and that's always hard to do.

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

How will uspa control one's ego????

Quote

Controlling ego idn't their job. That's the job of peer pressure and emergency room visits.

How would uspa talk to someone with 2000+ jumps and who shouldn't be on crossbrace????

Quote

The same way you tell a hundred jump wonder.

How will uspa undo one's landing habit which will eventually lead to eat shit if lucky??????
How about problem lies in jumpers not reading shit????
SIM book has enough information on what to work on under canopy.
Also parachute and pilot will be another good start.
Whenenver i suggest new jumper about the book and what do they do????? Nothing, cuz they know everything right?????

yeah...uh, ok... I think.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[vdschoor 0]

This was a very entertaining read to say the least.

A lot of good points are being made by a lot of people I respect a LOT.

Just wanted to add one small point, we're looking at USPA to change things, I say: revolution.

WE are all skydivers, WE are the ones that are jumping with these people that should really get training, or get a talking to right?

USPA is at their head quarters, in my case "all the way on the other side of the country"

I can complain to my regional director, give him tips on what I think should change at USPA.. but hey.. if USPA implements a new training method, but it's not being taught at the DZs, nothing changes right?

You are not going to get that old school badass in a classroom, unless he wants to.

You DO get him in there, if he cannot jump that hot shot canopy at your dropzone, and not at the dropzone next door, and not at the one across the country.

DZOs are not likely to take action unless a jumper comes up to him and says :hey this dude is sketchy under canopy.. I dont think he should be jumping that.
Result: the guy gets a talking to, and is told to jump a different canopy, or "jump somewhere else"
If enough DZs and fun jumpers do this, eventually that person might be in a class for "advanced training"

Have the DZs ask you for a certificate after that.. and now things will start working, but it all starts with the first questions when you show up at a new DZ:

1. how many jumps do you have?

A D license for some is only 200 jumps, for the newer jumpers its 500, but that's still "nothing", so a D license does not make you an "expert canopy pilot"

2. what are you flying?

3. How long have you been flying this

etc.

Start within and then start pushing it to USPA if the other way around is not working, and change the attitude of how you talk to people.

I talked to someone with 75 jumps last week about flying a camera (gopro)
I ASKED him to not fly it for a while and have some fun jumping with his buddies, and having someone else film the jump and copy it to his computer if he wanted proof of his jumps.

It was a very easy conversation, cause I was not being a DICK to him about it..

I agree, some people do not listen unless you are a dick to them.. but in general I'd like to think people are reasonable and you can have a discussion like this with them.

[peek 20]

Quote

I talked to someone with 75 jumps last week about flying a camera (gopro) ... It was a very easy conversation, cause I was not being a DICK to him about it.

Thank you, and good job.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Pre-A license holders "should" be getting enough basic canopy training from their instructors... if they're using the ISP and working with rated instructors, that is. They also spend more then enough money in those first 25 jumps.

They should be and they probably are. One big problem I feel is that when you ask a student to learn freefall skills and canopy skills on the same jump, they focus more on the freefall skills. It's human nature. It comes up every time the static line vs AFF argument is raised here that static line students appear to learn better canopy skills earlier than the AFF students do. I'm not making that claim, I"m just saying I hear the argument a lot.

And there's really no reason it has to cost a dime more. We already require 2 HnPs, right? Make it 4 or 5 instead, have the student do them when they are near licensing, and use them to really focus attention on the canopy skills they've been introduced to in the ISP.

At most DZs, low altitude passes are cheaper than full alti. If the DZ's staff are so focused on money that a coach isn't willing to hold a video camera for 5 minutes and debrief the canopy flight, then give 'em 5 bucks for it. It doesn't seem all that complicated and while it's just my opinion that it may help, I honestly can't see how it would do any harm.

Owned by Remi #?

[skybytch 259]

Quote

But it isn't getting into students' heads!!

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the basic canopy skills course in section 6 of the SIM. This is essentially the course taught by Flight 1.

I think you're talking about what is in the ISP. A good instructor/student program will cover all of that.

I could be wrong though.

[danornan 64]

I do understand the need for canopy training, but to me, that is not the real problem. I'm sure that it will help, but the main problem this year is the actions below 1,000 feet and in the so called landing pattern.

Learning better canopy skills is like learning better ways to handle a car. It's all good, but in order to have PREDICTABILITY in the LZ, there have to be rules. A road intersection must have rules for everyone to get through safely.

The rules are not always followed, and some will always choose to ignore them, but without a set of enforceable guidelines in the LZ, and not just assumptions, we will continue to have swoopers in the pattern, high performance parachutes overtaking the slow ones and hook turns killing innocent bystanders.

I have been on the receiving end of what I am complaining about and learned that the safest place in the LZ was far from the peas and spectators.

Dano

[Ron 7]

Quote

but to me, that is not the real problem. I'm sure that it will help, but the main problem this year is the actions below 1,000 feet and in the so called landing pattern

That is part of canopy training.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I'm sure that it will help, but the main problem this year is the actions below 1,000 feet and in the so called landing pattern.

The pattern and the importance of flying it predictably are part of the basic canopy skills course outlined in the SIM. Teaching it helps a lot - I've seen improvement in the pattern at the dz I used to jump at after teaching 4 courses using the outline in the SIM.